+1 to everything said here, with the caveat, that a quick read through of this thread reveals to me something: most everyone wanting this is coming from Premiere. Us premiere users really are expecting that audition behave and have the same UI/UX and design philosophy as Premiere. Now, I think in some regards, Premiere is heads and shoulders above audition (ie audition has ZERO asset or file management or organization capabilities. I've looked, and the general consensus of audition users is "why do you want that? just do everything in the OS, then come to audition." If that was how premiere worked, that'd be the end of premiere a decade ago).
But in this instance - and I think copy pasting the effects is still something with merit, and is somewhat troubling that its not because it makes me wonder how messy and/or untouched the code has been since before audition when it was cooledit - once you make the one time mistake of adding effect to a single clip instead of on the multitrack timeline, this is a relatively elegant solution. Process being: group all audio tracks of the same type or needing the same effects onto one track -> apply desired effects to multitrack effects rack -> done. If need be, you might have to do the annoyance of going to the track to create an effects rack preset, then deleting/turning off effects on clip, then bouncing back to multitrack but... it works. Also! Fun fact: in a truly amazing example of What You See is NOT What You Get effects applied to clip within the clip's effects rack ARE NOT reflected on the multitrack. ... That is... that is nonsense.
For premiere pro users, (and imo) bouncing to audition is a fine way to solve single audio clip issues. For me that's usually noise reduction, because audition's graphic representation of audio is finer than premiere - which shouldn't be a surprise, but here we are, extolling that an audio editor does, in fact, do something better audio-wise, as if that weren't a pretty basic expectation ):| - and the tool is easier to get a good result. But for anything else, if you're looking to jump into heavy duty audio work, or podcasts (like I mistakenly tried w audition), it'd probably be better to not even bother. Truthfully, the learning curve is probably relatively the same to any other audio editor or mixer out there, but starting afresh, you won't be tied down to incorrect assumptions that Adobe products might actually have synergy between each other. I mean, they kind of do, but only in aesthetics when it comes down to it. Case in point audition and premiere pro. The UI chrome looks familiar, but the process for each of them are wildly different, similar words have no particular connection, the ways effects, shortcuts, you name it... they don't work "like that Premiere Pro way".
Bottomline: Maybe if you've lived and breathed cooledit -> audition, it does the job. But coming from Premier Pro i think it's better to leave audition as a one-off, clean-the-audio-up-and-get-out-quick tool for a video editor. If you're jumping into audio in a big way, start with audacity, then branch out (read: away from adobe) from there. I'm going to look seriously into davinci resolve as my audio editor, which is also an NLE. To think: potentially one piece of software for editing, solid color correction and grading, and heavy duty audio editing. And the software is free, and then if you need the bells and whistles, it's $300. Perpetual license. No more monthly fees until forever. It's really, *really* attractive.
58
Replies
AdChoices